lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4701E552.3070501@goop.org> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:29:38 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> CC: Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling Rusty Russell wrote: > That's good, but this code does lose on native because we no longer > simply replace the entire thing with noops. > > Perhaps inverting this and having (inline) helpers is the way to go? > I'm thinking that the overhead will be unmeasurably small, and its not really worth any more complexity. That's almost certainly true for lazy mmu mode, but lazy cpu is used in the middle of a context switch, so it's probably worth a bit more attention. > I'm thinking something like: > > static inline void paravirt_enter_lazy(enum paravirt_lazy_mode mode) > { > BUG_ON(x86_read_percpu(paravirt_lazy_mode) != PARAVIRT_LAZY_NONE); > BUG_ON(preemptible()); > > x86_write_percpu(paravirt_lazy_mode, mode); > } > > static inline void paravirt_exit_lazy(enum paravirt_lazy_mode mode) > { > BUG_ON(x86_read_percpu(paravirt_lazy_mode) != mode); > BUG_ON(preemptible()); > > x86_write_percpu(paravirt_lazy_mode, PARAVIRT_LAZY_NONE); > } > Er, they should probably call something to make the switch actually happen, no? > The only trick would be that the flushes are so rarely required it's > probably worth putting the unlikely() in the top level: > Sure, I guess. Would it make any difference? (I've never personally noticed likely/unlikely change the generated code in any seriously positive way.) J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists